Mapping Research Methods: Kevin O'Gorman and Robert Macintosh

4
Mapping Research
Methods
Kevin O’Gorman and Robert MacIntosh
For no apparent reason, research philosophy tends to send dissertation

students into a mild panic. The befuddlement caused by a range of new
terminology relating to the philosophy of knowledge is unnecessary when
all that you are trying to achieve is some clarity over the status of any knowl-
edge claims you make in your study. Business and Management sits within
the broader context of the social sciences, and this chapter offers a guide to
the standard philosophical positions required to specify the particular form
of research you plan to undertake. Collectively, these positions will define
what we refer to as a research paradigm (see Figure 4.1: Methods Map). For
us, a comprehensive articulation of a research design draws together five
layers of interlocking choices that you, the researcher, should make when
specifying how you plan to execute your research. There is no single ‘right’
Copyright © 2014. Goodfellow Publishers, Limited. All rights reserved.
way to undertake research, but there are distinct traditions, each of which
tends to operate with its own, internally consistent, set of choices.
The Methods Map in Figure 4.1 offers a clear and structured approach
that will ensure that you can identify each of the choices you are making in
selecting your research design for your project. The process of developing
a research design begins with the location of your proposed work within
a particular research paradigm. Certain methods of data gathering and
analysis tend to follow from certain paradigms, although it is important to
notice that these implied pathways are not fixed. What is truly important is
your ability to recognise and justify the interlocking choices which represent
your own research design. Later chapters will deconstruct and explain the
subsequent stages of the Map, namely those choices relating to both data
gathering and data analysis. The sections that follow in this chapter relate
to the starting point of the Methods Map, labelled ‘Research Paradigm.’ We
D, O. K., & MacIntosh, R. (2014). Research methods for business and management : A guide to writing your dissertation. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from cqu on 2019-12-04 21:38:50.
Mapping Research Methods 51
Research Paradigm
Ontology
Objective Subjective
Epistemology
Critical Action
Positivist Interpretivist
Realist Research
4
Data Gathering
Methodology
Quantitative Case Study Qualitative
Techniques
Big Data Interviews Archives
Experiments Observation Physical Artefacts
Surveys Focus Groups Oral History
Netnography Audio Visual Ethnography

Data Analysis Approaches
Deductive Inductive
Exploring rElationships: Correlation analysis; Template Analysis

Partial correlation analysis; Multiple
regression analysis; factor analysis Thematic Analysis
Comparing groups: t-test; ANOVA; MANOVA; Discourse Analysis

ANCOVA
Hermeneutics
Structural Equation Modelling
Grounded Theory
Figure 4.1: Methods Map
52 Research Methods for Business and Management
shall first consider the reasons for articulating a research philosophy, before
exploring objective and subjective ontologies, and the epistemological
positions known as positivism, critical realism, action research and inter-
pretivism. In passing, we will also look at rhetoric (the study of persuasive
language) and axiology (the study of value) as a means of rounding out
your understanding of some key phrases and concepts.
Whilst these concepts emanate from philosophy, it is not necessary to have
studied philosophy in order to make sense of the terminology. In essence,
the purpose of setting out your research philosophy is to help signal to other
researchers those claims you might make in your findings, and the basis
on which you would make such claims. However, it is highly likely that
the same broad research question or objective could have been approached
using a very different style of research. All that you are required to do is
demonstrate that you engaged in a conscientious selection and defence of
what you deemed to be the most suitable approach, given your chosen topic.
Historically, certain paradigms may have been used for certain topics and
methods, yet it would be foolhardy to dismiss the potential for innovation
to be found in combining ideas and mixing methods.
Some of the ideas that follow may at first seem challenging and difficult
to work with. As a health warning, we would acknowledge that we have
made some simplifying assumptions in the approach that we have set out.
Those well versed in the philosophy of knowledge may take issue with
some aspects of our presentation here. However, we are confident that the
structured approach we are proposing will suffice for the vast majority of
individuals tasked with articulating a methods statement. Let’s first look at

why this is important.
Articulating a research philosophy

When undertaking any research project it is considered good practice to
clearly outline the basis for claiming to know what we know. Kuhn (1971)
set in place the tradition that once a paradigm is chosen it is advisable for
the researcher to remain within it. For the purposes of this discussion, a
paradigm, as defined by Harré (1987, p. 3), is considered to be “a combi-
nation of a metaphysical theory about the nature of the objects in a certain
field of interest and a consequential method which is tailor-made to acquire
knowledge of those objects.” At the philosophical level it could be perceived
as dualistic if the researcher were to argue simultaneously that they believe
that social reality is separate and external, whilst maintaining that reality is
merely a construction of the mind. Hussey and Hussey (1997) emphasise the
importance of researchers recognising and understanding their philosophi-
cal orientations within the paradigm adopted for a specific project.
In 1781 Immanuel Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason (1780/1998)
and caused a revolution in philosophy. Kant argued that there are ways of
knowing about the world other than through direct observation, and that
people use these all the time. This proposition provided the platform for
the launch of many of the ideas associated with research philosophy. Kant’s
view proposes considering not how our representations may necessarily
conform to objects as such, but rather how objects may necessarily conform 4
to our representations.
Prior to this, objects were considered in isolation, separate, and unchange-
able. Kant theorised that things could be considered as objects of experi-
ence: phenomena, rather than things in themselves (specified negatively as
unknown beyond our experience): noumena. Therefore, if human faculties
of representation are used to study these phenomena, a priori conceptuali-
sations can be envisaged. An ‘a priori’ judgement is based on theory and
argument rather than verified by experiment. For example, if we had only
ever had the experience of sitting in chairs before and we saw a stool for
the first time, rather than categorise it as unknown, we could conceptualise
a priori that it would be possible to sit on a stool just like we do on a chair.
Kant also showed how flawless logic can prove the existence of God and at
the same time prove that there is no God at all; illustrating that opposing
philosophies can be equally logical and at the same time contradictory and
incomplete: a salient warning to any emergent researcher defending their
philosophical stance.
The roots of research method

Gorgias, a fifth century Sophist, is remembered for his provocative apho-
risms. The most notable is his treatise On What is Not:
“Firstly ... nothing exists;
secondly ... even if anything exists, it is incomprehensible by man;
thirdly .., even if anything is comprehensible, it is guaranteed to be inex-
pressible and incommunicable to one’s neighbour”
(Gorgias 500 BC, quoted in Arist. De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia 980a: 19–20)
Gorgias’ treatise On What is Not is just a rhetorical parody of philological and

rhetorical philosophical doctrines. The aphorism deals with ontology, epis-
temology and introduces the problem of rhetoric and language in a world
where communication was shifting from the spoken to the written word.
Plato (Phaedrus) in 320 BC argued that writing would deteriorate memory,
wreak havoc on logical constructions, and create an artificial reality. Yet
despite being written 2500 years ago, Gorgias’ writing neatly summarises
the central concepts of this chapter. Before exploring some philosophical
concepts (first relating to ontology), Table 4.1 gives the meaning of some
commonly used terms:
Table 4.1: Some commonly used terms. Adapted from O’Gorman (2008)
Term Meaning
Axiology The branch of philosophy dealing with values, as those of ethics, aesthetics,
or religion.
Deduction a priori argument: deriving a proof or using evidence to test a hypotheses.
Epistemology The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of knowledge, its
presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
• The study of knowledge
• Theories of what constitutes knowledge and understanding of
phenomena
• How we explain ourselves as knowers, how we arrive at our beliefs
Induction a posteriori argument, deriving knowledge from empirical investigation.
Metaphysics The branch of philosophy concerned with the ultimate nature of existence.
Ontology The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being and of reality.
Methodology The study and application of methods.

Paradigm Theoretical framework, within which research is conducted.
Philosophy The academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and
significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs, and with investigating the
intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their
presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the
rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics),
the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and
import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language
and reality (semantics).
Reflexivity Critical self-awareness and examination of beliefs and knowledge-claims.
• Need for conscious, reflexive thinking about our own thinking, and
critique our pre-understandings, and their effect on our research
Rhetoric The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
• In particular the style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a
particular subject as used in the dissertation process
Ontology
As the Methods Map shows, the first stage in formulating your research
design is to articulate your ontology. In the most basic sense this means that
you must articulate whether you see the world as objective or subjective.
We’ll define both terms in a moment but first let’s look at ontology. The term
ontology is rarely used beyond academic institutions and it can be difficult
to know how to use it confidently. As with much specialist terminology,
a brief look at the linguistic components that form the word can help to
unlock a more practical meaning. If you can understand and use the word
‘biology’ (where ‘bios’ means life) then you can do the same with ontology 4
and epistemology. Biology is the study of life since the suffix (‘-logy’) is
derived from ‘logos’, which in this context can be taken to mean the ‘study
of.’ The word ‘Ontos,’ which provides the root ‘onto-‘, at its most basic
means ‘being’ or ‘reality’. Therefore ontology is the study of being or reality.
In lay terms it may be considered as how we view reality.
Outside of science fiction and fantasy novels, we might think of there
being only one reality, in which we live, breathe, and die. Yet the afore-
mentioned fictions are often inspired by the thought experiments through
which philosophers and theorists question our understanding of reality.
The most well-known of these is the brain-in-a-vat scenario, whereby a
scientist stimulates a disembodied brain with such precision as to simulate
an entirely realistic participation in what we call reality. Does the brain
experience reality, or is the experience of the scientist somehow more real?
In more contemporary terms, popular stories such as the Narnia novels or

the Matrix film series are based on the premise of stepping into a different
reality. In ontological terms, the philosophical notion of solipsism asserts
that since we cannot know other minds, the world and those other minds do
not exist. Similarly, a nihilist ontology contends that knowledge is impos-
sible, and that there is no such thing as reality. A rather more mundane
example of an altered reality relates to illness or pain: do we experience the
world in the same way when we are suffering? For example, if you were
asked to remove a hot dish from an oven, you would instinctively look to
put a protective glove on your hand to perform this task. You would do
this because you would expect to feel pain in your hand if you attempted
to remove the dish without protection. The pain would be caused by your
nervous system reacting to the heat of the dish so as to protect the skin
from being burned. If you were to remove the hot dish with an unprotected
hand the pain you would suffer as your skin burned would subconsciously
be associated with the dish itself: the dish is painful. However ontologi-
cally we can understand that the dish itself is simply hot and the body’s
reaction to the heat is to suffer pain. Therefore, the interaction between the
two things (hand and dish) has ‘created’ or precipitated pain to be felt, but
we can ask ourselves: is the pain real? Can it be objectively measured? If it
is just our body trying to send a message to our conscious brain that lift-
ing the hot dish with unprotected hands is a bad idea, then surely we can
override this message and lift the dish anyway? Pain is possibly the most
visceral sensation we experience as human beings but the important word
to remember here, as with Husserl’s work on phenomenology, is experience.
The theoretical reality of pain, as simply a sensory message to our brains to
protect us from harm, versus our experiential reality of pain, as something
that is unpleasant and negative, presents the different ways in which ontol-
ogy can be considered. Despite knowing that viruses don’t intend to cause
their hosts any pain, don’t we sometimes feel a grudge against the natural
world when we get ill? Can suffering even exist without being experienced?
As shown by the Methods Map, ontological assumptions can be broadly
divided into two fundamental configurations: objective and subjective.
Although these terms are far more commonly used, it may be helpful to
develop clear distinctions relating to their use in the context of research.
An objective perspective might be thought of as looking at reality as made
up of solid objects that can be measured and tested, and which exist even
when we are not directly perceiving or experiencing them. In particular, an
objective perspective would allow that something as simple as measuring

your height would result in the same answer, regardless of who does the
measuring. In more complex settings, we might aspire that our objectivity
allows us to make the judgements necessary to decide upon the guilt of a
defendant in a court of law. In contrast, a subjective perspective looks at
reality as made up of the perceptions and interactions of living subjects.
For instance, our response to a particular piece of music varies such that
we might find something delightful whilst our friends find the same piece
entirely unlistenable.
Having established these basic definitions, we can return to the process
of researching organizational settings. For instance, take the claim that hap-
pier workers are more productive. We might hold the belief that the lives of
others continue independently of our perceptions, and so we can measure
and test their actions and reactions whilst maintaining our role as detached
observers. This belief, typical of enquiries into the physical sciences, would
be described as an objective ontology. An objective ontology thus assumes
that reality exists independently of our comprehension of it, and that it is
possible to establish and explain universal principles and facts through
robust, replicable methods. At this point, you may find yourself agreeing
that this seems rather obvious and sensible. Alternatively, you may feel a
sense of discomfort at what you perceive to be an oversimplification of the
myriad factors that might influence happiness, productivity, motivation,
duty or fear, each of which may be influencing how productive an indi-
vidual worker is in a given circumstance on a given day. 4
In contrast to an objective stance, a subjective ontology assumes that our
perceptions are what shape reality, and this is a belief expressed in large
sections (though not all) of the social sciences. A subjective ontology sees
facts as culturally and historically located, and therefore subject to the vari-
able behaviours, attitudes, experiences, and interpretations – what we call
the subjectivity – of both the observer and the observed. This is sometimes
known as a relativist ontology, although this is arguably misleading, as one
can appreciate the power of subjectivity without necessarily being a moral
or cultural relativist. Subjective ontology approaches reality as multiple in
the sense that each individual experiences their place and time in the world
in a different way. For example, the subjectivity of an African-American
woman in 1960s Mississippi is likely to be entirely different from that of
a Native American Indian male in the same time and place (although both
are likely to have their experiences shaped by severe oppression). You

may already notice a problem with the subjective approach, namely that it
seems to require a certain objectivity to make a universal claim for a subjec-
tive ontology. This is not a problem that we shall attempt to solve here. A
simpler criticism of an entirely subjective ontology would be to say that
there are things in the world with observable characteristics, without which
they would be something else. For instance, zinc, or ethanol. A subjective
approach might counter this by saying that these characteristics are only
observable relative to a particular vocabulary, set of assumptions, and
people who subscribe to them; that scientific knowledge is widely accepted
as true does not mean that it is universally accepted.
Questions of objective and subjective ontologies continue to fuel
philosophical debate, perhaps because they are largely irresolvable. Our
perceptions of ourselves and of others are mutually influential. Like it or

not, when interacting with other people we are constantly making subcon-
scious comparisons and judgements, to ascertain our position within that
interaction. We may change the way in which we act if we know that we are
investigating something, or indeed our actions are being investigated. At
the same time, it seems there is an observable reality that exists outside of
human interactions, the properties of which can be measured and predicted.
As such, it should be understood that objective and subjective ontologies are
not mutually exclusive, and many researchers delineate their positions in
relation to these poles, somewhere between the two.
If this leaves you uncertain as to which way of studying reality is the
most appropriate for your research, then take some comfort from the fact
that this is a healthy sign that you are engaging with an exploration of the
underlying philosophy of your research. At the beginning of any project
(and often towards the end!) this uncertainty is entirely warranted, and
very much desirable. Ontological questions require careful and continuous
answering, and there will always be a valid argument against any position
you select. The one certainty is that considerations of how the researcher and
the act of researching might unwittingly impact upon that being researched
must be expressed, in order for the study to demonstrate an appropriate
depth of investigation. In academic research (particularly within the social
sciences) asserting our ontological position is crucial, since this sets out the
basis on which we view reality. All that we can really hope for is a general
consensus within the parameters deemed acceptable by a given community,
and it is therefore important to recognise that the somewhat manufactured

and exaggerated opposition between objective and subjective ontologies
acts as a catalyst for critical thinking.
Following the Methods Map from our considerations of ontology, we
now encounter and must make decisions about our epistemology.
Epistemology
Epistemology concerns the way in which we obtain valid knowledge. The
Methods Map illustrates four epistemological positions: positivist, critical
realist, action research, and interpretivist. Although there are others, articu-
lating your epistemological position in relation to these four allows you to
define your own ideas about the way in which we decide what constitutes
reliable knowledge. For instance, if you are asked for the time, and guess it
correctly without a watch, is this reliable knowledge? Or should this guess
be verified somehow? Would hearing a time announcement on the radio
represent confirmation, or would you be unsettled to know that digital
transmission of radio signals introduces a small delay? The importance
placed on the verified accuracy of the time would depend upon the context
in which you need confirmation, e.g. you may want to catch a connecting
flight, announce the turning of a new calendar year on live television or you
may want to measure the heartbeat of a newborn baby.
The term epistemology can be deconstructed in a similar way to ontol-
ogy. ‘Episteme’ means knowledge and therefore, epistemology is the study 4
of knowledge. By being clear about the way in which we might obtain valid
knowledge we are in turn being clear about the nature of any knowledge
claim that we might make. For instance, the observation that happier work-
ers tend to be more productive is a form of knowledge claim. In everyday
life we might engage in a debate as to the validity of such a claim, citing
other factors that might influence happiness, productivity, or the relation-
ship between the two. However, as researchers, we are required to draw
connections between the assumptions we hold about reality (ontology) and
the ways in which we might develop valid knowledge (epistemology).
Again referring to the Methods Map we can see a ‘positivist’ epistemol-
ogy on one side, opposed to an ‘interpretivist’ epistemology on the other.
These are placed in similar opposition to objective and subjective ontolo-
gies, as representing two different ways of thinking about knowledge. As
implied by the vertical flow of the Map, an objective ontology is typically

aligned with what is called a positivist (sometimes ‘foundationalist’) epis-
temological approach to knowledge, while subjectivity tends to be driven
by an interpretivist (sometimes ‘constructivist’, although there are differ-
ences) epistemology. Again, these are specialist terms that can seem difficult
to grasp, but a useful shorthand is to think of positivists positing and
explaining principles, and interpretivists interpreting and understanding
relationships. As we progress, it will be become clear that a research study
expressing an objective ontology with a positivist epistemological approach
might naturally be aligned with a quantitative methodology, whilst a study
expressing a subjective ontology with an interpretivist approach tends to be
aligned with a qualitative methodology.
Positivist paradigm Interpretivist paradigm

Focus on facts Focus on meaning(s)
Look for causality and Try to understand what is
fundamental laws happening
Reduce phenomena to Look at the totality of each
simplest elements situation
4
Formulate hypotheses and Develop ideas through induction
test them from the data
Operationalise concepts so Use multiple methods to establish
that they can be measured different views of phenomena
Take large samples Small samples investigated in
depth over time
Figure 4.2: Epistemologies with Positive and Interpretivist influence
There now follows a presentation of four different epistemologies in

social science research: Positivism, Critical Realism, Action Research and
Interpretivism. There are many others being applied within social sciences
research, however, particularly when it comes to undergraduate and post-
graduate research, a solid understanding of these epistemologies is neces-
sary to make an informed decision about the approach you will take.
Positivism
Positivism is most commonly associated with the natural sciences, but there
are advocates who suggest that social science would benefit from adopting
the same basic assumptions (see Donaldson, 1996). Three assertions are
associated with positivism:
Methodological procedures of natural science may be directly adapted to
the study of human social actions;
The outcomes of research in the social sciences will take the form of
causal laws; and
The results of social research are value-free.
Comte (1830/1853) first used the term positivism; he had envisaged that soci-
ology was to be the apex of positivism. This view is summarised in Giddens
(1974, p. 1) as “the science of man completed the historical evolution of the
hierarchy of the scientific disciplines, and for the first time made possible an
adequate understanding of that evolution”. Durkheim (1895/1964) was to
defend Comte’s (1830/1853) traditional version of positivism, which accen-
tuated the supremacy of logic and scientific knowledge as the paradigm
of all valid knowledge; the solution to the major practical problems facing
mankind. Durkheim (1895/1964) understood sociology to be the objective
study of ‘social facts’; and that social facts were to be considered as things.
However positivism was used in a derogatory sense by the Frankfurt School
(typical examples can be seen in Horkheimer and Adorno (1944/1988),
Marcuse (1967), Adorno (1969)), in the 1960s, to describe the assertions of
Popper (1957) that science offers the best method in the pursuit of objective 4
knowledge. Popper (1957) describes the scientific method as the “method of
bold conjectures (hypotheses) and ingenious and severe attempts to refute
them (falsification)” (cited in Checkland 1999, p. 57). Popper (1957) argues
that sociologists must adopt the procedural rules, standards and intellectual
conventions of science and embrace the point that there are no such things
as ‘truth’ other than conjectural, relative truth.
The popularity of positivism in business research is probably because the
data used is highly specific and precise. Babbie (1998) argues the place for
positivism in social research and points out the interacting links between
positivism and phenomenology by noting that “every observation is
qualitative at the outset” (Babbie, 1998, p. 36), whilst observing the reason
“qualitative data seem richer in meaning is partly a function of ambiguity”
(Babbie, 1998, p. 37). In social science, unlike physical sciences, paradigms
cannot be true or false, as ways of looking; they can only be more or less
useful.
Critical realism
Critical realism is a relatively recently articulated epistemological posi-
tion, derived from both objective and subjective ontologies, and chiefly
espoused by Roy Bhaskar (1978; 1989; 1993). Critical realists assume that
there is a reality that exists independently of human perceptions, but that
our access to this reality is always limited and skewed by those perceptions.
Our perceptions are both physically limited (e.g. we can’t see into the past
or future) and ideologically limited (e.g. we are biased by personal experi-
ences). Although the critical realist makes assumptions about the world in
order to produce knowledge from observations grounded in reality, it is
accepted that these assumptions only create a temporary reality, which may
well take on a different appearance from another perspective. Put simply,
this position is ‘realist’ in believing in an external reality, but ‘critical’ of our
ability to access and measure it.
Building on this, critical realists hold that although it is not possible to
objectively verify universal characteristics of reality, humans nevertheless
behave as if this were possible. We interpret and act upon situations as
though causal relationships (e.g. if I drop this then it will fall) exist inde-
pendently of our perceptions and actions. This view assumes that the power
of perceptions can and does shape the world, but at the same time sees the
effect of that shaping as the construction of often reliable and measurable
circumstances. For example, when I strike a match, I assume that the flame
will not be so large as to engulf and ignite the rest of the box. Furthermore,
even when performing the same action with the unshakeable belief that the
striking of a single match would ignite the box, this wouldn’t happen unless
an unusual set of physical conditions were met to make it so. Our percep-
tions inform and guide our decision-making, yet many scientific theories
have physical consequences independent of human experience.
This layering of reality is expressed by critical realists as stratification,
which is a principal feature of this perspective, although there is arguably
some ambiguity in the application of the term. Briefly, stratified reality con-
sists of a hierarchy of overlapping layers, with lower (or deeper, invisible)
levels causing effects at higher (more easily perceived) levels. We might
consider this as the distinction between what we can see happening, the
events leading up to this, and the various forces that may or may not come
into play at a given moment. This uniquely structured interaction of layers
produces a particular outcome that cannot be reduced to its constituent
parts, but nevertheless can be observed at the higher levels of stratification.
This becomes more complicated when we start to think about social
reality, such as the case of happy workers. Phenomena such as happiness
are subject to similarly layered distinctions based on what we assume to
be reality, and again tempered by our limited ability to perceive what is
occurring. Critical realists are particularly interested in the differences and
interactions between the individual and society, and between individual
actions and social structures. Although this is not the space to fully explore
the stratification of reality, nor the ‘emergent’ powers stemming from its
layers, it might be helpful to consider the stratification of this small sec-
tion of the chapter. We (the author and imagined reader) acknowledge that
there is something called ‘critical realism’ in the real world, but we can only
gain access to this through language. We can read the words on these pages
without having access to the process of writing, the chemical properties of
ink, the historical chance and measurement that led to the printed word,
or to the discussions that preceded the decision to write. The way in which
we read these words is likely to be altered if, for instance, we have had
an unfortunate prior experience with a spontaneously combusting box of
matches. Such idiosyncratic elements of human experience and biography
come together to create a perspective on critical realism that is completely
individual, yet refers to something that certainly seems to exist. 4
Even if this all seems quite remarkably unrealistic in its apprehension of
what we understand as reality, it is hoped that this brief summation of criti-
cal realism will both prompt further investigation and generate searching
questions about the nature of one’s philosophical inquiries.
Action research
Far from being a single approach, Action Research is an umbrella term used
to cover a wide range of styles of research unified by a shared emphasis on
effecting change to the situation being studied. One of the most commonly
used definitions of action research is that it involves working with organiza-
tional members on matters of genuine concern to them and over which they
have a genuine need to take action (Eden and Huxham, 2001). It is therefore
a highly applied and engaged form of research which sees managers and
researchers collaborate to foster change.
Kurt Lewin introduced the term in 1946 to denote a new approach to
social research that combined generation of theory with changing a social
system through the researcher acting on or in the social system. He suggested
that action research was concerned with two rather different questions “the
study of general laws and the diagnosis of a specific situation” (Lewin, 1946:
36). Lewin’s early Action Research projects concerned critical social prob-
lems, like racism and anti-Semitism, since he believed traditional science
was failing to make an adequate response to such problems. Sadly, Lewin
only wrote 22 pages on the topic of Action Research (Peters and Robinson,
1984), and died suddenly in 1947, aged 57 years old. Nevertheless, Action
Research evolved in two related but distinct traditions. In the US, with the
help of Douglas McGregor, Lewin set up the Center for Group Dynamics at
MIT and then at the University of Michigan. Working with Lewin’s guid-
ance Cook, Chein and Harding outlined four varieties of action research
– diagnostic, participant, empirical and experimental. (see Cunningham,
1993:15). In the UK, a group of war-time researchers who later formed the
Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London, developed their own
variant of Action Research using a steering committee to develop a strategy
for carrying out the research and implementing the findings in a particular
context. Researchers would gather background data, perform analysis
and implement changes, often in the first instance using a test area of the
organization.
Today there are a number of variants of Action Research in use (see Reason
and Bradbury, 2001 for a comprehensive overview). Some approaches to
Action Research use “survey feedback” where systematic feedback of data
from, for example, a company-wide employee attitude survey would be
used to bring about change through group discussion and involvement.
However, Action Research is more commonly associated with qualitative
data. Indeed, MacIntosh and Bonnet (2007 p. 321) note:
“Qualitative research is sometimes styled as the poor cousin of ‘real
science’… if this is the case, action research is the poor cousin’s downtrodden
neighbour”.
The validity of Action Research is often challenged precisely because it
places heavy emphasis on developing a deep understanding of one specific
setting, thus critics claim it has a limited capacity to develop generalizable
knowledge. Despite its popularity as a method, only a handful of empirical

publications in the most prestigious journals feature Action Research in
their method statements. Researchers considering Action Research there-
fore face two challenges. First, they must find a host organization willing
to (a) participate in the research and (b) committed to taking action on the
basis of the research conducted. Second, they may face greater difficulty in
publishing their findings in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.
Interpretivism
Interpretivism is often considered the generic paradigm of the social sci-
ences and was developed in reaction to the dominance of positivism in the
19th and 20th centuries. Interpretivism identifies that there are fundamental
differences between the natural and human sciences and these distinctions
stemmed from the different aims – explanation versus understanding.
Weber (1924), a key proponent of this paradigm, argued that the social sci-
ences seek to ‘understand’ social phenomena in terms of ‘meaningful’ cat-
egories of human experience and therefore, the ‘causal-functional’ approach
of the natural sciences is not applicable in social inquiry. Weber (1924)
recognised the nature of ‘subjectivity’ in studying humans, and noted that
whilst physical systems cannot react to predictions made about them, social
systems can. He pointed out that the ‘self-consciousness’ of human beings
and the ‘freedom of choice’, which that consciousness entails, implies that
an observer can never obtain an up-to-date account of the subject’s state of
mind, which would be correct for the agent to accept. Hence in the interpre-
tivist tradition, the social scientist can only reveal ‘trends’ rather than ‘laws’. 4
Weber’s interpretive social science, based on the ‘attribution of meaning’,
is closely related to Husserl’s (1950/1964) work on phenomenology. The
basic premise of the interpretivist paradigm is that unlike the physical sci-
ences, which deal with objects external to the researcher, the social sciences
deal with action and behaviour generated from within the human mind.
There is a clear interrelationship between investigators and the investigated,
researcher and the researched. Verification of what actually exists in the
social and human world depends on the researcher’s interpretation; the
researchers’ beliefs regarding the metaphysical realm could influence their
interpretation of the physical realm.
In essence, the interpretive paradigm takes into account the multiple
realities which are inevitably revealed by the perspectives of different
individual(s), the context of the phenomenon under investigation, the con-
textual understanding and interpretation of the collected data and the nature
and depth of the researcher’s involvement. Broadly speaking, interpretivism
allows the focus to be fixed on understanding what is happening in a given
context rather than just measuring it (Patton, 1990; Klein & Myers, 1999).
A note on (research) paradigms

St Anselm, the 11th century philosopher and Archbishop of Canterbury,
wrote, “I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but I believe so
that I may understand” (Anselm Proslogion 154-5). St Anselm asserts that
nothing is achieved or ascertained by merely speculating from the sidelines;
a certain level of committed involvement is necessary. Indeed, different
research vantage points would yield different types of understanding, whilst
accentuating these diverse perspectives does not negate the existence of an

external reality. Hammersley (1992) referred to ‘subtle realism’; the accept-
ance that the social world does exist independently of individual subjective
understanding, although highlighting that the social world is regulated
by normative expectations and shared understandings. The theory of the
independent existence of the social world was established by Aristotle (circa
350BC) when he argued that something exists apart from the concrete thing:
“If, on the one hand, there is nothing apart from individual beings, and
the individuals are infinite in number, how is it possible to get knowledge of
the infinite individuals? For all things that we know, we know in so far as
they have some unity and identity, and in so far as some attribute belongs to
them universally. But if this is necessary, and there must be something apart
from the individuals, it will be necessary that something exists apart from the
concrete thing” (Aristotle Metaphysics 999a 25 – 28).
At the ontological level, the scientific method has been questioned with
observations that there are many more social processes at play than are usu-
ally acknowledged in the development of new scientific ‘facts’ (Latour and
Woolgar, 1986). Also, developments in chaos theory and quantum physics
have led to an increasing number of studies questioning whether the natu-
ral world is as stable and law-like as had been previously supposed (see for
example Prigogine and Stengers, 1984). Businesses, events, organisations,
and even individuals do not, in themselves, possess meaning; meaning is
conferred on them by and via interaction. Interpretivism seeks to observe
the general trends and perceptions of a social phenomenon. Fundamentally,
qualitative methods are useful for unravelling and understanding what lies
behind any phenomenon about which little is known. Management is a
practice rather than a science and even proponents of the unity of science
(such as Popper (1957) who assumes that facts can be gathered in the social
sciences in much the same way as in natural sciences) have unfortunately
devoted little attention to the particular problems of social science.
Recognition also needs to be given to the importance of being as objec-
tive and neutral as possible in the interpretation and presentation of the
research. Current thinking would consider it essential for a research project
to be framed within one philosophical paradigm, and to remain within it:
the philosophical paradigm and the basic research assumptions must be
compatible and clearly understood. Whilst mixed methods are increasingly
popular, we would contend that mixed philosophies are likely to be a recipe
for confusion. In summary, the research assumptions which relate to the

philosophical paradigm are:
Ontological issue (nature of reality);
Epistemological issue (relationship of the researcher to that being
researched);
Rhetorical issue (language selection in research); and
Axiological issue (role of values in a study).
We shall now turn to the effective use of language, before considering the
role of values in your research.
4
Rhetoric or the use of language in a dissertation
Rhetoric is the art or study of using language effectively and persuasively,
and within the context of the research process it normally applies to the
particular style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particu-
lar subject. This section briefly explores two aspects of rhetoric which are
central to the dissertation and underpinned by your research philosophy:
metadiscourse and authorial voice. You are more familiar with this subject
than you think. For a start we all use rhetoric every day to serve our agendas
in conversation with friends and family, at university or at work. A rhetorical
question is a question used in a context where the question in itself drives a
particular agenda without needing answered, for example if someone asked
you if you liked ice cream, your likely response would be yes but instead of
simply saying yes, you might choose to drive a persuasive rhetorical agenda
by responding with the rhetorical question, “Do fish live in water!?!”. By
responding in the form of a rhetorical question you are enforcing the idea
that someone shouldn’t have to ask if you like ice cream because everyone
likes ice cream.
Metadiscourse is a term for words used by an author to mark the direction
and purpose of a text. It refers to all those devices which you use to organ-
ise the text for the reader and can include textual as well as interpersonal
functions. It includes use of language, first person pronouns, and evaluative
expressions. When you are writing your dissertation you should consider
the reader looking over your shoulder. You write to meet the reader’s needs
at the time, and you must always consider your hypothetical reader when
writing. In the case of this book the reader is multifaceted: students who are
taught by the authors and other students; colleagues who also engage their
own students; the wider academic community who have an interest in the
subject; and there is always the possibility of other readers looking at the
content as an example of how to write a text book. In writing a dissertation
you must address your reader who is probably your marker too, whilst
proving you are making a contribution and demonstrating yourself as a
competent member of the academic discipline.
How you use aspects of metadiscourse will also help shape your autho-
rial voice – the way in which you write to differentiate yourself from other
authors. This does not mean that as an author you have to write the same
way all the time, just as different social occasions require different dress
codes, different texts require different writing styles. A reflective essay
would require a strong personal voice whereas a report or an exam would
require a more formal tone. This view of authorial voice also has close paral-
lels with a major tenet of post-structuralist thought. According to Foucault
(1981) people have, by their very nature, multiple instead of unitary person-
alities or subjectivities. The Russian literary and linguistics scholar Bakhtin
(1986) proposed the notion of heteroglossia, (from the Greek meaning many
tongues). All language is made up of words, phrases, and ideas in effect
borrowed from other authors and infused with their intentions; an author’s
voice is inevitably multiple, intertextual, and appropriate to the situation.
Most academic writers develop an autobiographical self, the identity they
bring with them to their writing.
The underpinning philosophy that informs the research design that you
adopt for your study will shape how you write your dissertation. If you
adopt an interpretivist stance then you might be more inclined to write in
a personal voice, using personal pronouns (if considered appropriate by
your supervisor) and the tone could highlight the evolving decision making
which took place during the research process. Whereas if you were positiv-
ist in your approach, your writing might more naturally take a more formal
tone, based on set definitions and with a rather impersonal voice. As has
been implicitly mentioned in this chapter, language itself is a construction
that we use to communicate our work and our ideas. Within the area you
are studying there will be prevailing assumptions relating to the meaning
of words and phrases and their appropriate uses. With the same precision
that you would seek to spell and arrange words appropriately, you must
endeavour to be aware of the meaning of the language you use to the par-
ticular literature space to which your dissertation will belong. For example,
you may intend to interview for your dissertation business owners who
could legitimately be described interchangeably as entrepreneurs, leaders and
managers. However, each of these three terms has a vast area of literature
that inform their meanings, and thus by using all three your metadiscourse
would be weakened, thereby jeopardising the strength and validity of your
conclusions. Your writing style and language choices will influence your
marker, and should be appropriate to your academic community. Finally,
and most importantly, it should be readable. This might seem like an obvi-
ous thing to say but how often have we read academic papers that are full of
incomprehensible words and groaning under a writing style so impenetra- 4
ble that the text is rendered unreadable. Writing should use language that is
accessible to as many people as possible.
Axiological considerations
Axiology is the philosophical study of value, often seen as the collective
term for ethics and aesthetics; the two branches of philosophy that depend
on notions of value. This is distinct from Research Ethics which should
inform your data collection. Values here inform the bias, which you as an
individual bring to the research project. We all have biases; it is how we deal
with them or at the very least acknowledge them that is important.
One of the defining features of contemporary industrial society is post-
modernity and the development of reflexivity or self-consciousness. Simply

put, reflexivity is that stage beyond reflection: reflecting back on oneself.
Reflexive modernity or postmodernity, and the vagaries of the post-modern
condition are virtually unavoidable in contemporary research within the
social sciences, which include business management. Personal subjective
experiences are often central to the choice of research path, and should not
go unacknowledged.
In social science research we deal with human interaction and feelings,
not the cold hard facts normally studied in the natural sciences and engi-
neering. This can present individuals in sensitive and demanding situations,
such as the complex dynamics studied in Alexanderet al. (2012), where the
subjective interpretation of the concept of bullying is dealt with among
organisational teams. In his address to the universities, Pope John Paul II
(2000, p.3) states that it is the duty of academics and researchers to make
“universities ‘cultural laboratories’ in which theology, philosophy, human

sciences and natural sciences may engage in constructive dialogue” and
observes that in universities “there is an increased tendency to reduce the
horizon of knowledge to what can be measured and to ignore any question
touching on the ultimate meaning of reality.”
In the research process a positivist axiological approach would be a
value-free and unbiased process, whereas interpretivism could be more
value-laden and biased. That said we might also keep in mind the words
of Benedict XVI (2005, p.2) when he observes that today “we are building a
dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and
whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.” Now, it
seems likely that Benedict had his own bias when he said that, after all he
was a Cardinal at the time, and he made that speech to the other Cardinals
the day before he was elected Pope. Most texts are value-laden and have
inherent bias.
Assumption Question Positivism Critical Realism Action Research Interpretivist

Ontological What is the Reality is Reality is stratified
Reality is knowable Reality is
nature of singular, set and engaged with through interaction multiple and
reality? apart from the by the researcher with the specifics of interpreted by
researcher a given situation the researcher
Epistemo- How do Researcher is Interdependent Researcher interacts Researcher
logical we obtain independent but analytically with what is being interacts with
knowledge from that distinct nature of researched with the that being
of that being society, culture express intention researched
reality? researched (structure) and of changing the

individual (agency) situation
Rhetorical How is Formal Formal as well as Tends toward the Informal
language based on set considers first and first person voice evolving
used in the definitions; third person voice decisions;
research? impersonal personal voice
voice
Axiological What is Value-free and Considers the The values of the Value-laden
the role of unbiased influence of values researcher are and biased
values? as experience imposed through
the overt attempt
to effect a particular
kind of change
Figure 4.3: Research assumptions and positivistic and interpretivist paradigms. Adapted from
O’Gorman (2008)
Once you have formed your research paradigm, a further set of choices
can be made relating to the approach that you take to gathering your data.
As illustrated by the Methods Map, this involves the selection of a general
methodology, and specific techniques. Chapter 5 looks at case studies, and
Chapter 6 explores different sources of data. Chapter 7 offers a discussion of
qualitative data gathering techniques, while Chapter 8 looks at quantitative
data gathering techniques. Again, following the Map, you will then come
to select an appropriate approach to data analysis. These approaches are
broadly categorised as deductive, which typically works to analyse quan-
titative data, and inductive, which tends to be used to analyse qualitative
data. Chapters 8 and 10 provide the accompanying discussions on analys- 4
ing qualitative and quantitative data respectively.
Only since the era of the Enlightenment, and the rise of rationalism –
with its rigid view of a nature governed by intractable rules – has the writ-
ten word been straitjacketed by very clear ideas of just what is and is not
physically possible. Imagination and a refusal to take things at face value
play a big part in scientific understanding, research and discovery. For
instance the King James Bible, first published in 1611, refers several times to
the unicorn, while dragons were often hunted in the Dark Ages. The abil-
ity to take an imaginative leap beyond accepted scientific dogma and the
entrenched views of academic colleagues, disciplinary boundaries or even
apparent common sense has been at the heart of a significant number of
scientific or technological advances in the last few hundred years. For exam-
ple, throughout most of the 20th century, the conventional wisdom was
that peptic ulcers were caused by gastric juice. Only by a pioneering doctor
infecting himself with a bacterium (Helicobacter pylori) could he prove that
conventional wisdom was incorrect and win the Nobel Prize for medicine.
This is true even for advances that seem to be based on objective fact or cold
hard logic, as the physicist Max Planck said: “New ideas are not generated
by deduction, but by an artistically creative imagination ... Science, like
the humanities, like literature, is an affair of the imagination” (McFague
1982, p.75). After all, as Shakespeare’s Hamlet tells Horatio “There are more
things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (Hamlet
Act 1 Scene v).
References
Classical sources
Anselm, St., Proslogion , with, A reply on behalf of the fool by Gaunilo; and The
author’s reply to Gaunilo translated, with an introduction and philosophical
commentary, by M. J. Charlesworth. Clarendon Press Oxford (1965).
Aristotle, Metaphysics, Oeconomica, and Magna Moralia. Loeb Classical Library,
Volume 17. Heinemann 1968.
Modern sources
Adorno, T. W. (1969). Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie. Berlin:
Luchterhand.
Alexander, M., MacLaren, A., O’Gorman, K., & Taheri, B. (2012). “He just
didn’t seem to understand the banter”: Bullying or simply establishing
social cohesion? Tourism Management, 33(5), 1245-1255.
Babbie, E. (1998). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.
Bakhtin, Mikhail (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. C. Emerson and
M. Holquist (Eds.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bhaskar, R. (1978). On the possibility of social scientific knowledge and the
limits of naturalism. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 8(1), 1-28.
Bhaskar, R. (1989). Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary
Philosophy: Verso.
Bhaskar, R. (1993). Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom: Verso.
Checkland, P. (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York: Wiley.

Comte, A. (1830/1853). Cours De Philosophie Positive. London: John Chapman.
Cunningham, J.B. (1993) Action Research and Organizational Development,
Praeger, Westport, CT.
Donaldson, L. (1996) For Positivist Organization Theory: proving the hard core
SAGE: London
Durkheim, E. (1895/1964). Les Règles de la Méthode Sociologique. New York: The
Free Press of Glenco.
Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (2001) The Negotiation of Purpose in Multi-
Organizational Collaborative Groups, Journal of Management Studies, 38(3),
373-391
Foucault, M. (1981). The Order of Discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the

Text: a post-structuralist reader (pp. 47-78). London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Giddens, A. (Ed.). (1974). Positivism and Sociology. London: Heinemann.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s Wrong with Ethnography? London: Routledge.
Harré, R. (1987). Enlarging the Paradigm. New Ideas in Psychology, 5(1), 3-12.
Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1944/1988). Dialektik der Aufklärung:
philosophische Fragmente. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch.
Husserl, E. (1950/1964). Die Idee der Phänomenologie. The Idea of Phenomenology.
The Hague: Nijhoff. 4
Hussey, J., & Hussey, R. (1997). Business Research, A Practical Guide for
Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. London: Macmillan Business.
Kant, I. (1780/1998). Kritik der Reinen Vernunft. Critique of Pure Reason (P. Guyer
& A. W. Wood, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and
evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly,
23(1), 67-93.
Kuhn, T. S. (1971). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986) Laboratory Life: the construction of scientific
facts, Princeton University Press: New Jersey
Lewin, K. (1946) Action research and minority problems, Journal of Social
Issues, 2, 34-46.
MacIntosh, R. and Bonnet, M. (2007) International Perspectives on Action
Research: introduction to the special issue, Management Research News,
30(5), 321-324
Marcuse, H. (1967). Der Eindimensionale Mensch: Studien zur Ideologie der
fortgeschrittenen Industriegesellschaft. Berlin: Luchterhand.
McFague, S. (1982) Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language
SCM Press, London.
O’Gorman, K. D. (2008). The Essence of Hospitality from the Texts of Classical
Antiquity: The development of a hermeneutical helix to identify the philosophy of
the phenomenon of hospitality. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London:
SAGE.
Peters, M., & Robinson, V. (1984). The origins and status of action research.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20(2), 113-124.
Popper, K. R. (1957). The Unity of Method. In J. Bynner & M. Stribley (Eds.),
Social Research: Principles and Procedures (pp. 17-24). Essex: Longman and
The Open University Press.
Prigogine, I. and I. Stengers (1984) Order out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with
Nature. New York: Bantram
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds) (2001) Handbook of Action Research:
Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage Publications, London.
Weber, M. (1924). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Soziologie und Sozialpolitik. Tübingen:
J.C.B. Mohr.

Mapping Research Methods: Kevin O'Gorman and Robert Macintosh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mapping Research Methods: Kevin O'Gorman and Robert Macintosh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4

Kevin O’Gorman and Robert MacIntosh

For no apparent reason, research philosophy tends to send dissertation

Quantitative Case Study Qualitative

Experiments Observation Physical Artefacts

Surveys Focus Groups Oral History

Netnography Audio Visual Ethnography

Data Analysis Approaches

Exploring rElationships: Correlation analysis; Template Analysis

Comparing groups: t-test; ANOVA; MANOVA; Discourse Analysis

Figure 4.1: Methods Map

individuals tasked with articulating a methods statement. Let’s first look at

Articulating a research philosophy

The roots of research method

Gorgias’ treatise On What is Not is just a rhetorical parody of philological and

Methodology The study and application of methods.

In more contemporary terms, popular stories such as the Narnia novels or

objective perspective would allow that something as simple as measuring

are likely to have their experiences shaped by severe oppression). You

perceptions of ourselves and of others are mutually influential. Like it or

and it is therefore important to recognise that the somewhat manufactured

implied by the vertical flow of the Map, an objective ontology is typically

Positivist paradigm Interpretivist paradigm

Figure 4.2: Epistemologies with Positive and Interpretivist influence

There now follows a presentation of four different epistemologies in

knowledge. Despite its popularity as a method, only a handful of empirical

A note on (research) paradigms

accentuating these diverse perspectives does not negate the existence of an

for confusion. In summary, the research assumptions which relate to the

modernity and the development of reflexivity or self-consciousness. Simply

“universities ‘cultural laboratories’ in which theology, philosophy, human

Assumption Question Positivism Critical Realism Action Research Interpretivist

reality? researched (structure) and of changing the

Checkland, P. (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York: Wiley.

Foucault, M. (1981). The Order of Discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the

You might also like